One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 17, Issue , 2016, Pages 217-236

  Bremer, Leah L ^a   Auerbach, Dan A ^b,c   Goldstein, Joshua H ^c   Vogl, Adrian L ^a   Shemie, Daniel ^c   Kroeger, Timm ^c   Nelson, Joanna L ^a,c   Benítez, Silvia P ^c   Calvache, Alejandro ^c   Guimarães, João ^d   Herron, Colin ^c   Higgins, Jonathan ^c   Klemz, Claudio ^c   León, Jorge ^c   Sebastián Lozano, Juan ^c   Moreno, Pedro H ^e   Nuñez, Francisco ^c   Veiga, Fernando ^c   Tiepolo, Gilberto ^c  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^c THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^d FAUNA AND FLORA INTERNATIONAL   (United Kingdom)

^e Fondo Agua por La Vida y La Sostenibilidad   (Colombia)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Investment in watershed services; Payment for watershed services; Source water protection; Water Funds; Watershed conservation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956876540     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Benítez, S., Blanco, A. Cole, J., Ibáñez, M., Rodríguez, J.J., Halloy, S., 2010. Using water funds to finance watershed conservation in the Andes and Costa Rica Mountain Forum Bulletin, January 2010.
2. Benites, G. 2015. Protocolo de monitoreo socioeconómico en la comunidad de Huamantanga, cuenca del rio Chillon. Unpublished report.
3. Bennett, G., Carrol, N., Hamilton, C., 2013. Charting new waters: State of Watershed Payments 939 2012, in: Forest trends' ecosystem marketplace, Wasthington, D.C., pp. 78, . http://www.forest940trends.org/documents/files/doc_3308.pdf.
4. Bennett D.E., Gosnell H., Lurie S., Duncan S. Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8:1-9. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.02.001.
5. Bennett, G., Carroll, N., 2014. Gaining depth: State of watershed investment, in: Forest trends ecosystem marketplace, Washington, D.C.
6. Brauman K.A., Daily G.C., Duarte T.K., Mooney H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32:67-98. 10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758.
7. Bremer L.L., Farley K.A., Lopez-Carr D. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioParamo program. Land Use Policy 2014, 36:122-133. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.
8. Bremer L.L., Farley K.A., Lopez-carr D., Romero J. Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: what is the potential for " win - win"?. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8:1-18. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.007.
9. Brockington D. Ecosystem services and fictitious commodities. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38:367-369. 10.1017/s0376892911000531.
10. Brown K., Corbera E. Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Clim. Policy 2003, 3:S41-S56. 10.1016/j.clipol.2003.10.004.
11. Bruijnzeel L.A. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104:185-228.
12. Buytaert W., Célleri R., De Bièvre B., Cisneros F., Wyseure G., Deckers J., Hofstede R. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth-Science Rev. 2006, 79:53-72. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.06.002.
13. Buytaert, W., Deckers, J., Dercon, G., G. De, Bie, Govers, J., 2002. Poesen Impact of land use changes on the hydrological properties of volcanic ash soils in South Ecuador, 2, pp. 94-100 doi: 10.1079/SUM2001107.
14. Buytaert W., Wyseure G., De Bièvre B., Deckers J. The effect of land-use changes on the hydrological behaviour of Histic Andosols in south Ecuador. Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19:3985-3997. 10.1002/hyp.5867.
15. Calvache, A., Benítez, S., Ramos, A., 2012. Fondos de Agua: Conservando la Infraestructura Verde. Guía de Diseño, Creación y Operación. Alianza Latinoamericana de Fondos de Agua. The Nature Conservancy, Fundación FEMSA y Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Bogotá Colombia. pp. 144. 〈〉. http://www.fondosdeagua.org/sites/default/files/WATER%20FUNDS%20MANUAL-SPANISH%20VERSION.pdf.
16. Corbera E., Pascual U. Ecosystem services: heed social goals. Science 2012, 335:655-656.
17. Duke J.M., Dundas S.J., Johnston R.J., and Messer K.D., 2014. Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection. Ecol. Econ. 105, 319-329.
18. Echavarria M., Vogel J., Alban M., Meneses F. The impacts of payments for watershed services in Ecuador: Emerging lessons from Pimampiro and Cuenca 2004, 66. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
19. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:663-674. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011.
20. Farley K.A., Kelly E.F., Hofstede R.G.M. Soil organic carbon and water retention after conversion of grasslands to pine plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ecosystems 2004, 7:729-739. 10.1007/s10021-004-0047-5.
21. Farley K.A., Anderson W.G., Bremer L.L., Harden C.P. Compensation for ecosystem services: an evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian paramo grasslands. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 48:393-405. 10.1017/S037689291100049X.
22. Farley K.A., Bremer L.L., Harden C.P., Hartsig J. Changes in carbon storage under alternative land uses in biodiverse Andean grasslands: implications for payment for ecosystem services. Conservation Lett. 2013, 6(1):21-27. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00267.x.
23. Ferraro P.J., Pattanayak S.K. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Plos Biol. 2006, 4:482-488. http://dx.doi.org/E105 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.
24. Ferraro P.J., Lawlor K., Mullan K.L., Pattanayak S.K. Forest figures: ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 6(1):20-44. 10.1093/reep/rer019.
25. Gammie, G., Bremer, L., Maldonado, O. In Preparation. Designing and assessing water fund projects: participatory social impact assessment for AquaFondo, the water fund for Lima, Perú. AquaFondo, Forest Trends, The Natural Capital Project, CONDESAN, The Nature Conservancy.
26. Gartner T., Mulligan J., Schmidt R., Gunn J. Natural Infrastructure: Investing in Forested Landscapes for Source Water Protection in the United States 2013, 134. World Resources Institute, United States. https://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_tools/natural_infrastructure.pdf.
27. Goldman R.L., Tallis H., Kareiva P., Daily G.C. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105:9445-9448. 10.1073/pnas.0800208105.
28. Goldman-Benner R.L., Benitez S., Boucher T., Calvache A., Daily G., Kareiva P., Kroeger T., Ramos A. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 2012, 46:55-63. 10.1017/S0030605311001050.
29. Goldman-Benner R.L., Benitez S., Calvache A., Ramos A., Veiga F., Water Funds A New Ecosystem Service and Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. In: Simon Levin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Elsevier Ltd., pp. 352-366, 2013, . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00330-0.
30. Gassman P. W., Reyes M. R., Green C.H., and Arnold J.G., 2007. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions. Transactions of the ASABE 50(4), 1211-1250.
31. Harden C.P., Hartsig J., Farley K.A., Lee J., Bremer L.L. Effects of land-use change on water in Andean Páramo grassland soils. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2013, 101(3):375-384. 10.1080/00045608.2013.754655.
32. Higgins,J.V., Zimmerling, A., 2013. A Primer for Monitoring Water Funds The Nature Conservancy y. A Primer for Monitoring Water Funds The Nature Conservancy, pp. 150.http://www.fondosdeagua.org/sites/default/files/Water%20Funds_Monitoring%20Primer_TNC_2013.pdf.
33. Ingram J.C., Wilkie D., Clements T., McNab R.B., Nelson F., Baur E.H., Sachedina H.T., Peterson D.D., Foley C.A.H. Evidence of payments for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7:10-21. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.003.
34. Jack B.K., Kousky C., Sims K.R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105:9465-9470. 10.1073/pnas.0705503104.
35. Kauffman C.M. Financing watershed conservation: lessons from Ecuador's evolving water trust funds. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 145:39-49. 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.09.013.
36. Keating P.L. Fire ecology and conservation in the high tropical Andes: observations from Northern Ecuador. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 2007, 6:43-62. 10.1353/lag.2007.0003.
37. Kinzing A. P., Perrings C., Chapin F. S., Polasky S., Smith V. K., Tilman D., and Turner B. L., 2011. Paying for ecosystem services-promise and peril. Science, 334(6056), 603-604.
38. Kroeger T. The quest for the "optimal" payment for environmental services program: Ambition meets reality, with useful lessons. Forest Policy Econ. 2013, 37:65-74. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.007.
39. Martin-Ortega J., Ojea E., Roux C. Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Latin America: A literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:122-132. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.008.
40. McAfee K., Shapiro E.N. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100:579-599. 10.1080/00045601003794833.
41. McDonald, R. I., and D. Shemie. 2014. Urban Water Blueprint: Mapping conservation solutions to the global water challenge.
42. Muradian R., Arsel M., Pellegrini L., Adaman F., Aguilar B., Agarwal B., Corbera E., de Blas D.E., Farley J., Froger G., Garcia-Frapolli E., Gomez-Baggethun E., Gowdy J., Kosoy N., Le Coq J.F., Leroy P., May P., Meral P., Mibielli P., Norgaard R., Ozkaynak B., Pascual U., Pengue W., Perez M., Pesche D., Pirard R., Ramos-Martin J., Rival L., Saenz F., Van Hecken G., Vatn A., Vira B., Urama K. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6:274-279. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x.
43. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
44. Naeem S., Ingram J.C., Varga A., Agardy T., Barten P., Bennett G., Bloomgarden E., Bremer L.L., Burkill P., Cattau M., Ching C., Colby M., Cook D.C., Costanza R., DeClerck F., Freund C., Gartner T., Goldman-Benner R., Gunderson J., Jarrett D., Kinzig A.P., Kiss A., Koontz A., Kumar P., Lasky J.R., Masozera M., Meyers D., Milano F., Naughton-Treves L., Nichols E., Olander L., Olmsted P., Perge E., Perrings C., Polasky S., Potent J., Prager C., Quétier F., Redford K., Saterson K., Thoumi G., Vargas M.T., Vickerman S., Weisser W., Wilkie D., Wunder S. Get the science right when paying for nature's services. Science 2015, 347(6227):1206-1207.
45. Ogden F.L., Stallard R.F. Land use effects on ecosystem service provisioning in tropical watersheds, still an important unsolved problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2013, 110. E5037-E5037.
46. Piccirelli, F.C., Barbosa, P., 2014. Indicadores de qualidade de água em sistema de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais. Estudo de caso: Extrema, MG. UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO. Unpublished report. 78 pp.
47. Ponette-Gonzalez A.G., Marin-Spiotta E., Brauman K.A., Farley K.A., Weathers K.C., Young K.R. Hydrologic connectivity in the high-elevation tropics: heterogeneous responses to land change. Bioscience 2014, 64:92-104. 10.1093/biosci/bit013.
48. Porras I., Aylward B., Dengel J. Monitoring Payments for Watershed Services Schemes in Developing Countries 2013, 36. International Institute for Environment and Development, United Kingdom. http://pubs.iied.org/16525IIED.html?c=econ.
49. Porras I., Grieg-Gran M., Neves N. All That Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries 2008, 138. International Institute for Environment and Development, United Kingdom. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/13542IIED.pdf.
50. Raes, L., Rengel, E., Romero, J., 2012. Inter-municipal cooperation in watershed conservation through the establishment of a regional water fund - FORAGUA - in Southern Ecuador TEEB case study. 〈〉. http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FORAGUA-Ecuador-pdf.
51. Reed P. Redd+ and the indigenous question: a case study from Ecuador. Forests 2011, 2:525-549. 10.3390/f2020525.
52. Reyers B., Polasky S., Tallis H., Mooney H.A., Larigauderie A. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 2012, 62:503-507. 10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12.
53. Richards M., Mwampamba T. Initial recommendations for the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of investments in Watershed Services Programs. Forest Trend. 2013, 31. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4086.pdf.
54. Rodriguez, L.M., 2014. Monitoreo de impacto socioeconómico en la sub cuenca Aguaclara, cuenca Río Bolo. Valle del Cauca. Colombia. Unpublished report. pp. 81.
55. Rosa, H., Kandel, S., Dimas, L.,Cuéllar, N., Méndez, E., 2003. Compensation for Environmental Services and Rural Communities: Lessons from the Americas and Key Issues for Strengthening Community Strategies. PRISMA (Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación Sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente). San Salvador, El Salvador. pp. 87. 〈〉. https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-prisma-en-01.pdf.
56. Ruckelshaus M., McKenzie E., Tallis H., Guerry A., Daily G., Kareiva P., Polasky S., Ricketts T., Bhagabati N., Wood S.A., Bernhardt J. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 115:11-21. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.
57. Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin- Kramer R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M, Mandle L, Hamel P, Vogl AL (2014) InVEST user's guide. Stanford: the Natural Capital Project. Available from: . http://ncp-dev.stanford.edu/dataportal/investreleases/documentation/current_release/.
58. Southgate D., Wunder S. Paying for Watershed Services in Latin America: a review of current initiatives. J. Sustain. For. 2009, 28:497-524.
59. Tallis H., Polasky S. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1162:265-283. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x.
60. Turpie J.K., Marais C., Blignaut J.N., The Working for Water Programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 65, 2008, 788-789.
61. Vogl A.L., Tallis H.T., Douglass J., Sharp R., Wolny S., Veiga F., Benitez S., León J., Game E., Petry P., Guimarães J., Lozano J.S. Resource Investment Optimization System: Introduction & Theoretical Documentation, Natural Capital Project 2015, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. [〈http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/RIOS.html〉].
62. WBCSD Sharing Water: Engaging Business why Watershed Approches are Important to Business Sustainability 2014, 26. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Washington D.C. http://www.wbcsd.org/sharingwaterengagingbusiness.aspx.
63. White S. Grass páramo as hunter-gatherer landscape. Holocene 2013, 23:898-915.
64. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13:279-297. 10.1017/s1355770x08004282.
65. Wunder S. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6:230-237. 10.1111/conl.12034.
66. Wünscher T.S., Engel and S. Wunder. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Economics 65, 2008, 822-833.