chapter  15
11 Pages

Payments for environmental services to mitigate climate change: agriculture and forestry compared: Sven Wunder and Jan Börner

BySVEN WUNDER, JAN BÖRNER

Payments for environmental services (PES) schemes have received much attention as potentially cost-effective and equitable means to yield environmental benefits, nested in forestry (Pagiola et al. 2002; Landell-Mills and Porras 2002) and agriculture (FAO, 2007; Ribaudo et al. 2010). PES schemes are voluntary and conditional (cash or in-kind) transfers from at least one buyer to minimum one seller, aimed at increasing environmental service (ES) provision, relative to a given baseline (Wunder, 2007). For mitigation purposes, PES have the advantage of being performancefocused, thus easing links to carbon markets and specific mitigation targets. In this chapter, our particular interest is in land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF )-oriented PES schemes. Two fundamentally different approaches exist:

1 forest-based PES-conserving, managing and restoring standing forests, afforestation/reforestation (A/R), reducing agricultural expansion into forests, retiring cropland for restoring natural vegetation (typically, forests), versus:

2 agricultural PES-changing the use of agricultural products, technology and management practice (e.g., organic production, no-tillage, or no-burn techniques), to reduce negative/increase positive environmental externalities.1