ABSTRACT
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is rapidly gaining attention as a potential mechanism to integrate protection of natural resources within production landscapes. However, we are at a critical crossroads where PES has captured the imagination of conservationists, economists and landowners alike; yet there is little documented evidence that PES either ensures the delivery of the service that is being paid for or that it improves the livelihood of landowners. Furthermore, it is important that this growing attention to PES does not hinder the development and use of other means to secure the provision of ecosystem services, which use either other financial incentives (Jack et al, 2008) or less ‘trendy’ ways, such as command and control, integrated development conservation approaches and law enforcement (Wunder et al, 2008). Another commonly used approach is to purchase private lands in sensitive areas as a means of protecting them from harmful human activities (e.g. local authorities who secure recharge areas to ensure the provision of high-quality water). The selection and combination of the most efficient means to guarantee the provision of the desired ecosystem services will depend on the local context. In many cases, combinations of mechanisms or policy mixes will be the most effective means of ensuring ecosystem services. For example, a community may develop a communally agreed territorial management plan to maximize the ecosystem services, but may also depend on law enforcement to ensure that the plan is followed.
