Payments for environmental services: Coasian transactions or something else?

Da-Rocha, Jose-Maria and Gutierrez, Maria Jose and Trelles, Rafael (2016): Payments for environmental services: Coasian transactions or something else?

Abstract

Payments for environmental services (PES) are based on the beneficiary-pays rather than the polluter-pays principle. In this paper we argue that this is a key factor for identifying what ecosystems are amenable to PES. We build a general equilibrium framework to identify what ecosystems are amenable to PES as an efficient solution. In economies where society has a higher degree of environmental responsibility and produces a low level of alternative land services income efficient transfers cannot be financed with voluntary payments. There- fore PES programs must be seen as environmental subsidies (to ES providers) and must be combined with a user fee (on ES users). We use Costa Rica’s Payments for Environmental Services program (PSA) to illustrate our findings. We find that the efficient payments for forest conservation are higher than the value reported by Pagiola (2008). Implementing an efficient system implies an increase in payments for forest conservation by 4.15-fold.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: PES, Coase, Efficiency
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q50 - General

References

Bertsch, F. (2004). El recurso tierra en costa rica. Agronomıa Costarricense, 30(1):133–156.

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., and Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4):663–674.

Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., and May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6):1202–1208.

Muñoz-Piña, C., de Janvry, A., and Sadoulet, E. (2003). Recrafting rights over common property resources in mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 52(1):129–58.

Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M., and Braña, J. (2008). Paying for the hydrological services of mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics, 65(4):725–736.

Pagiola, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services in costa rica. Ecological Economics, 65(4):712–724.

Pagiola, S. and Platais, G. (2007). Payments for environmental services: From theory to practice. World Bank, Washington.

Pagiola, S., Ramirez, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., and Ruiz, J. P. (2007). Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 64(2):374–385.

Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., and Michener, C. D. (2004). Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. PNAS, 101(34):12579–1258.

Tacconi, L. (2012). Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 73(C):29–36.

Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper, 42.

Wunder, S., Engel, S., and Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of pay- ments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65(4):834–852.