Operationalizing payments for ecosystem services in Brazil's sugarcane belt: How do stakeholder opinions match with successful cases in Latin America?

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 22, Issue , 2016, Pages 128-138

  Silva, Rafaela A ^a   Lapola, David M ^a   Patricio, Gleiciani B ^a   Teixeira, Moara C ^a   Pinho, Patricia ^b   Priess, Joerg A ^a,c  

^a SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Atlantic Forest; Brazilian Forest Code; Nature conservation; Participatory methods; Public policies; Rio Claro SP municipality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993969490     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.013     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alcamo, J., van Vuuren, D., Ringler, C., Cramer, W., Masui, T., Alder, J., Schulze, K., Changes in nature's balance sheet: model-based estimates of future worldwide ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc., 10, 2005, 19.
2. Banks-Leite, C., Pardini, R., Tambosi, L.R., et al. Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Science 345 (2014), 1041–1045, 10.1126/science.1255768.
3. Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 76–85, 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007.
4. Brasil, 2012. Federal Law 12.651 25/May/2012. Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa. Presidência da República, Brasília. Available at: (http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm).
5. Cáceres, D.M., Silvetti, F., Díaz, S., The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation-a case study from the South American Chaco. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), 57–66, 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.003.
6. Cassola, R., TEEB case: Payments and Technical Support for Reforestation and Soil Conservation for Watershed Protection. 2010, TEEB, Brazil.
7. Cochran, W.G., Sampling Techniques. 1997, John Willey & Sons, New York.
8. Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (2007), 365–380.
9. Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., et al. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4 (2013), 4–14, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001.
10. Grima, N., Singh, S.J., Smetschka, B., Ringhofer, L., Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 24–32, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010.
11. Haines-Young, R.Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. Nottingham.
12. Henrichs, T., Zurek, M., Eickhout, B., Kok, K., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Ribeiro, T., van Vuuren, D., Volkery, A., Scenario development and analysis for forward-looking ecosystem assessments. Ash, N., Blanco, H., Brown, C., et al. (eds.) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners, 2010, Island Press, Washington, 151–220, 10.1126/science.1196624.
13. IBGE, I.B. de G.E., 2014. Sistema IBGE de Recuperação Automática - SIDRA. (http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/agric/default.asp?z=t&o=11&i=P) (accessed 07.06.15).
14. Lapola, D.M.Soares-Filho, B.S.Ribeiro, M.C.Pinho, P.F.Patricio, G.B.Silva, R.A.Teixeira, M.C.Ribeiro, J.W.Priess, J.A., 2014. Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot | Science Comments. (http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1255768) (accessed 12.11.15).
15. Lapola, D.M., Martinelli, L.A., Peres, C.A., et al. Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nat. Clim. Change 4 (2014), 27–35, 10.1038/nclimate2056.
16. Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., et al., 2013. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2779/75203.
17. Magrin, G., Marengo, J., Boulanger, J.P., Buckeridge, M.S., Castellanos, E., Poveda, G., Scarano, F.R., Vicuña, S., 2014. Central and South America. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 1499–1566.
18. Maine, J.J., Boyles, J.G., Bats initiate vital agroecological interactions in corn. PNAS 112 (2015), 12438–12443, 10.1073/pnas.1505413112.
19. Martins, R., 2015. A seca já começou a afetar a economia. Cart. Cap. (http://www.cartacapital.com.br/revista/835/a-seca-da-economia-4105.html) (accessed 12.11.15).
20. Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M., Gonzalez, A., Forest fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 (2014), 909–918, 10.1111/1365-2664.12241.
21. Pagiola, S., Carrascosa Von Glehn, H., Taffarello, D., Experiências de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais no Brasil. 2012, SMA/CBRN, São Paulo.
22. Patrício-Roberto, G., Campos, M., Aspects of landscape and pollinators—What is important to bee conservation?. Diversity 6 (2014), 158–175, 10.3390/d6010158.
23. Peterson, R.A., Merunka, D.R., Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. J. Bus. Res. 67 (2014), 1035–1041, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.010.
24. Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333 (2011), 1289–1291, 10.1126/science.1208742.
25. Preiskorn, G.M., Couto, H.T.Z., Quantificação e monitoramento de biomassa e carbono em plantios de áreas restauradas. Rodrigues, R.R., Brancalion, P.H.S., Isernhagen, I., (eds.) Pacto Pela Restauração Da Mata Atlântica: Referencial Dos Conceitos E Ações de Restauração Florestal, 2009, Instituto BioAtlântica, São Paulo, 147–157.
26. Priess, J.A., Elger, R., Hauck, J., 2014. The ESM-App – a new smartphone application to map ecosystem services. In: Ames, D.P., Quinn, N.W.T., Rizzoli, A.E. (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 7th Intl. Congress on Env. 2014 Modelling and Software. San Diego.
27. Priess, J.A., Hauck, J., Integrative scenario development. Ecol. Soc., 19, 2014, 12, 10.5751/ES-06168-190112.
28. Queiroz, C., Meacham, M., Richter, K., Norström, A.V., Andersson, E., Norberg, J., Peterson, G., Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44 (2015), 89–101, 10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0.
29. Railsback, S.F., Johnson, M.D., Effects of land use on bird populations and pest control services on coffee farms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (2014), 6109–6114, 10.1073/pnas.1320957111.
30. Rio Claro, P.M., 2014. Diagnóstico ambiental e desenvolvimento de sistemas de implementações de projetos de recuperação da qualidade dos corpos d’água. Rio Claro.
31. Ritchie, J., et al., 2014. Designing and selecting samples. In: Ritchie, J. et al. Qualitative Research Pratice. A Guide for Social Science Students & Researchers. 2nd Ed. SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC.
32. Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 6 (2013), 16–30, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002.
33. Seroa da Motta, R., Manual para Valoração Econômica de Recursos Ambientais. 1997, IPEA/MMA/PNUD/CNPq, Rio de Janeiro.
34. Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H., Alencar, A., Cracking Brazil's forest code. Science 344 (2014), 363–364, 10.1126/science.1246663.
35. Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., Chang, A., An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008), 9457–9464.
36. Turner, B.L. II, Esler, K.J., Bridgewater, P., et al. Socio-Environmental Systems (SES) research: what have we learned and how can we use this information in future research programs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), 160–168, 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.001.
37. Vedovato, L.B., Áreas prioritárias para conservação e restauração da paisagem utilizando multi-caminhos e informações de avifauna. 2013, Universidade Estadual Paulista.
38. Wegner, G.I., Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 18 (2016), 617–644.
39. Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Payments for ecosystem services: a new way of conserving biodiversity in forests. J. Sustain. For. 28 (2009), 576–596, 10.1080/10549810902905669.