ABSTRACT

Payments for environmental services (PES) are a promising mechanism for conservation. PES could either provide additional funding for protected areas, pay land users to conserve biodiversity outside protected areas, or both. PES require a secure long-term source of financing to work effectively. Obtaining payments directly for biodiversity conservation is difficult, however. In most cases, water users are the most likely source, either directly or indirectly. Thus the potential for PES to help conserve biodiversity depends, in a large measure, on the degree to which areas of interest for conservation of water services overlap with areas of interest for conservation of biodiversity. This paper examines the extent of such an overlap in the case of highland Guatemala. The results show that this potential varies substantially within the country, with some biodiversity conservation priority areas having very good potential for receiving payments, and others little or none. Overall, about a quarter of all biodiversity conservation priority areas have potential for receiving payments. Thus PES are far from being a silver bullet for biodiversity conservation, but they can make a meaningful contribution to this objective.

Notes

1.

Highland Guatemala is defined as the part of the country that excludes the Petén region.

2.

The discussion of PES focuses solely on its use in developing countries.

3.

A hotel in the Guanacaste area is paying for watershed conservation, but it is doing so to protect its water supplies, as it is a major water user (Pagiola, 2008). To date, no tourism sector company is paying specifically for scenic beauty or biodiversity conservation.

4.

To the extent that some tourism operators are paying for the conservation of areas greater than those visited, as is to some degree the case in Ecuador's Cuyabeno Reserve (Wunder, 2000) or in Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme (Frost & Bond, 2008), they might be considered to be partially PES.

5.

Examples of such projects include the Mexico Environmental Services and the Brazil Espirito Santo Biodiversity and Watershed Restoration projects (under implementation), and the Colombia Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Sustainable Cattle Ranching project (under preparation).

6.

Examples include Quito's FONAG, which provides financing to the Antisana and Cayambe Coca reserves (Echavarría, 2002a); the San Francisco de Menéndez community in El Salvador, which helps pay for conservation in El Imposible National Park (Herrador et al., 2002); and small communities near the Pico Bonito National Park in Honduras, who pay to conserve their water sources within the park (EcoLogic, 2006).

7.

Some sources give different numbers of PAs. The discrepancy mainly arises from whether PA complexes that include a core zone, various multiple use zones, and a buffer zone are counted as a single PA or several separate ones.

8.

For example, Wendland et al. (forthcoming) use a map of population density to develop a map of areas that are important for water quality.

9.

See Pagiola et al. (2007) for additional details.

10.

This map differs slightly from the watershed map produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Nutrition (MAGA), but the differences are too small to materially affect the results of this analysis. Neither the MAGA map nor Nelson and Chomitz's map would be detailed enough to allow planning of specific mechanisms.

11.

In addition, many industrial users rely on wells, and so are outside the scope of our analysis.

12.

Unfortunately, there is no way to gauge the extent of the underestimation.

13.

PROARCA's map provides a more comprehensive coverage of Guatemala's PA system than the map currently available from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre's (UNEP-WCMC) World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA).

14.

IUCN's protected area categories are: Ia: Strict Nature Reserve (managed mainly for science); Ib: Wilderness Area (managed mainly for wilderness protection); II: National Park (managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation); III: Natural Monument (managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features); IV: Habitat/Species Management Area (managed mainly for conservation through management intervention); V: Protected Landscape/Seascape (managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation); and VI: Managed Resource Protected Area (managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems).

15.

There are minor discrepancies in the management categories of PAs given in the PROARCA and WCMC maps. For instance, Laguna Lachuá National Park is shown as a category I area in the PROARCA map but as a category II area in the WCMC map. Whenever such discrepancies arise, we used the PROARCA classification.

16.

As can be seen in Figure 1, WSAs for different water uses sometimes overlap. When the two WSAs are of different value, we use the higher-value category.

17.

Fortunately, the area's high profile has enabled it to attract other support, including a share of a US$24 million debt-for-nature swap with the US Government that was facilitated by The Nature Conservancy in 2006. Other areas may not be so fortunate.

18.

An additional US$5 million would be channelled directly to PA budgets.

19.

In theory, it is possible that some PWS could endanger biodiversity. If the over-riding objective in a particular case were to increase total water yield from a watershed, then reducing forest cover might be one way of achieving this (Aylward et al., 1999; Bruijnzeel, 2004). Total water yield is rarely the main concern, however; dry season flow or water quality are much more common concerns (Pagiola & Platais, 2007). In any case, as deforestation is illegal in most countries, such a PWS mechanism is unlikely to be implemented.

20.

Some industrial users, such as bottlers, may likewise prize water quality. In France, for example, Vittel pays farmers not to use pesticides and other agrochemicals in the recharge areas of its springs (Perrot-Maître, 2006).

21.

We do not have access to a recent forest cover map of Guatemala, and so cannot determine to what extent areas within PAs, their buffer zones, and the biological corridors that connect them might potentially be eligible for REDD payments.

22.

The converse situation of WSAs being fully or almost fully contained within a PA is also potentially interesting. Although in this situation water payments could help conserve only part of the PA, they might be especially easy to arrange, as the transaction costs of negotiating and then implementing payments would be low, given that a single ‘provider’ is involved (the PA itself). This does not apply, however, to cases in which there are substantial populations living within the PA.

The text of this article is only available as a PDF.

References

Asquith, N. M., Vargas Ríos, M. T., & Wunder, W. (2008) Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 675–684.
Aylward, B. A., Echevarría, J., Allen, K., Mejías, R., & Porras, I. T. (1999) Market and Policy Incentives for Livestock Production and Watershed Protection in Arenal, Costa Rica, CREED Working Paper No. 25. London: IIED.
Barbier, E. B., & Aylward, B. A. (1996) Capturing the pharmaceutical value of biodiversity in a developing country, Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, pp. 157–181.
Barrantes, G., & Gámez, L. (forthcoming) The payments for water services program of Heredia's public service utility, in: G. Platais & S. Pagiola (Eds.) Ecomarkets: Costa Rica's Experience with Payments for Environmental Services (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Bennett, M. T. (2008) China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 699–711.
Bonham, C., Sacayon, E., & Tzi, E. (2008) Protecting imperiled ‘paper parks’: Potential lessons from the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala, Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(7), pp. 1581–1593.
Brandon, K., Sanderson, S., & Redford, K. (1998) Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas (Washington, DC: Island Press).
Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, pp. 185–228
Bruner, A., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004) Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries, BioScience, 54(12), pp. 1119–1126.
Bruner, A., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., & da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity, Science, 291, pp. 125–128.
Capoor, K., & Ambrosi, P. (2008) State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008 (Washington, DC: World Bank).
CCAD (2005) Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano: Programa estratégico regional para la conectividad (Managua: EDITARTE for the Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo).
Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services, PLoS Biology, 4, e379.
CONAP (2002) Informe Institutional 2002 (Guatemala: Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas).
CONAP (2003) Informe nacional de areas protegidas de Guatemala (Guatemala: Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas).
Dudley, N., & Stolton, S. (2005) The role of forest protected areas on supplying drinking water to the world's biggest cities, in: T. Trzyna (Ed.) The Urban Imperative, CIPA Publication No. 109 (Sacramento: California Institute for Public Affairs).
EarthTrends (2003) EarthTrends Country Profiles: Biodiversity and Protected Areas—Guatemala (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute).
Echavarría, M. (2002a) Financing watershed conservation: The FONAG water fund in Quito, Ecuador, in: S. Pagiola, J. Bishop, & N. Landell-Mills (Eds.) Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, pp. 91–102 (London: Earthscan).
Echavarría, M. (2002b) Water User Associations in the Cauca Valley: A Voluntary Mechanism to Promote Upstream-Downstream Cooperation in the Protection of Rural Watersheds, Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Case Study Series (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)).
EcoLogic (2006) Case study: Village-led watershed management in Honduras. Paper presented at the 4th World Water Forum, Mexico City, Mexico, 16–22 March 2006.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, B., Richardson, D. M., Le Maitre, D. C., & van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 127, pp. 135–140.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues, Ecological Economics, 65, pp. 663–674.
Farnsworth, N. R., & Soejarto, D. D. (1985) Potential consequences of plant extinction in the United States on the current and future availability of prescription drugs, Economic Botany, 39, pp. 231–240.
Foley, C. (2007) Tanzania tour operators pay to protect land that wildlife, and their businesses, depend on, East and Southern Africa Katoomba Group E-Newsletter (Washington: Forest Trends).
FAO (2003) State of the World's Forests (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation).
FAO (2007) AQUASTAT Main Country Database (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation). Available at http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm (accessed September 2007).
Foster, V., & Araujo, M. C. (2004) Does Infrastructure Reform Work for the Poor? A Case Study from Guatemala, Policy Research Working Paper No. 3185. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Frost, P. G. H., & Bond, I. (2008) The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 776–787.
Herrador, D., Dimas, L. A., & Méndez, V. E. (2002) Pago por servicios ambientales en El Salvador: Oportunidades y riesgos para pequeños agricultores y comunidades rurales (San Salvador: Fundación PRISMA).
IUCN (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature).
James, A. N., Green, M. J. B., & Paine, J. R. (1999) A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff, WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 10. Cambridge: World Conservation Monitoring Centre – World Conservation Press.
Laird, S. A., & ten Kate, K. (2002) Linking biodiversity prospecting and forest conservation, in: S. Pagiola, J. Bishop, & N. Landell-Mills (Eds.) Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, pp. 151–172 (London: Earthscan).
Lehnhoff, A., & Núñez, O. (1998) Guatemala: Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve, in: K. Brandon, K. Redford, & S. Sanderson (Eds.) Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected Areas, pp. 107–141 (Washington, DC: Island Press and The Nature Conservancy).
McAllister, D. E. (1991) Estimating the pharmaceutical values of forests, Canadian and tropical, Canadian Biodiversity, 1(3), pp. 16–26.
Mejía, M. A., & Barrantes, G. (2003) Experiencia de pago por servicios ambientales de la Junta Administradora de Agua Potable y Disposición de Excretas (JAPOE) de Jesús de Otoro, Intibucá, Honduras (Tegucigalpa: PASOLAC).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends (Washington, DC: Island Press).
Missrie, M., & Nelson, K. (2005) Direct Payments for Conservation: Lessons from the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund, College of Natural Resources Research Summary Paper No. 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Muñoz-Pina, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J., & Brana, J. (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 725–736.
Nelson, A., & Chomitz, K. (2007) The forest–hydrology–poverty nexus in Central America: An heuristic analysis, Development and Sustainability, 9(4), pp. 369–385.
Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 712–724.
Pagiola, S., Colom, A., & Zhang, W. (2007) Mapping Environmental Services in Guatemala (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N., and Bishop, J. (2002) Making market-based mechanisms work for forests and people, in: S. Pagiola, J. Bishop, & N. Landell-Mills (Eds.) Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, pp. 261–290 (London: Earthscan).
Pagiola S., & Platais, G. (2007) Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. Washington: World Bank.
Pagiola, S., Platais, G., & Ducassi, L. (forthcoming) Paying for biodiversity: the trust fund for sustainable biodiversity conservation, in: G. Platais & S. Pagiola (Eds.) Ecomarkets: Costa Rica's Experience with Payments for Environmental Services (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Pearce, D., & Puroshothamon, A. (1992) Preserving Biological Diversity: The Economic Value of Pharmaceutical Plants, CSERGE Discussion Paper No. 92–97. London: CSERGE.
Perrot-Maître, D. (2006) The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem Services: A ‘Perfect’ PES Case? (London: IIED).
Principe, P. (1989) The Economic Value of Biodiversity Among Medicinal Plants (Paris: OECD).
Reid, W. V., Laird, S. A., Gamez, R., Sittenfeld, A., Janzen, D. H., Gollin, M. A., & Juma, C. (1993) A new lease on life, in: W. V. Reid, S. A. Laird, C. A. Meyer, R. Gamez, A. Sittenfeld, D. H. Janzen, M. A. Gollin, & C. Juma (Eds.) Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development, pp. 1–52 (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute).
Rice, R. E., Linke, J., Bruner, A. G., Suárez, L., & Hardner, J. (2003) Conservation incentive agreements: An approach to linking conservation and economic development on indigenous lands in Ecuador. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, 19–23 May 2003.
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., Hoffmann, M., Long, J. S., Marquet, P. A., Pilgrim, J. D., Pressey, R. L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S. N., Underhill, L. G., Waller, R. W., Watts, M. E. J., & Yan, X. (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity, Nature, 428, pp. 640–643.
Secaira, E., Lehnhoff, A., Dix, A., & Rojas, O. (2000) Delegating Protected Area Management to an NGO: The Case of Guatemalas's Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve (Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program).
Simpson, R. D. (1997) Biodiversity prospecting: Shopping the wilds is not the key to conservation, Resources, 126, pp. 12–15.
Simpson, D. R., Sedjo, R. A., & Reid, J. W. (1996) Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future).
Southgate, D. (1997) Alternatives for Habitat Protection and Rural Income Generation Paper No. ENV-107. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Southgate, D., & Wunder, S. (2007) Paying for Watershed Services in Latin America: A Review of Current Initiatives Working Paper 07–07. Blacksburg, VA: SANREM CRSP.
Turpie, J. K., Marais, C., & Blignaut, J. (2008) The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 788–798.
Walker, I., & Velásquez, M. (1999) Regional Analysis of Decentralization of Water Supply and Sanitation Services in Central America and the Dominican Republic, Environmental Health Project Activity Report No. 65. Washington, DC: USAID.
Wendland, K. J., Miroslav Honzák, M., Portela, R., Vitale, B., Rubinoff, S., & Randrianarisoa, J. (forthcoming) Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar, Ecological Economics, in press.
World Bank (2004) Poverty in Guatemala (Washington, DC: World Bank).
World Bank (2006) Guatemala Country Environmental Analysis Addressing the Environmental Aspects of Trade and Infrastructure Expansion, Report No. 36459-GT. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2007) Venezuela Expanding Partnerships for the National Parks System Project: Project Appraisal Document, Report No. 37502-VE. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wunder, S. (2000) Ecotourism and economic incentives – An empirical approach, Ecological Economics, 32(3), pp. 465–479
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor: CIFOR.
Wunder, S., & Albán, M. (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 685–698.
Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008) Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries, Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp. 834–852.
Zhang, W., & Pagiola, S. (2008) Assessing the Potential for Synergy in the Implementation of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Programs: An Empirical Analysis in Costa Rica (Washington, DC: World Bank).