PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING PRIORITY AREAS FOCUSING ON BIODIVERSITY*

PICHARILLO, CAROLINE; RANIERI, VICTOR EDUARDO LIMA

doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc201703033vu2019L3AO

CAROLINE PICHARILLO

Master and PhD Candidate in Environmental Engineering Sciences by the University of São Paulo (EESC/USP). Email: carolinepicharillo@usp.br.

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5736-3863

VICTOR EDUARDO LIMA RANIERI

Associate Professor, University of São Paulo. PhD in Hydraulic Engineering and Sanitation from the University of São Paulo. Email: vranieri@sc.usp.br.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9203-5037

ID	Questions	Situation
ID	Questions	Selected	Excluded
(1)	Is this work about the prioritization of areas for the implementation of PES schemes that is exclusive for the biodiversity conservation or that also comprises other services?	Yes	No
(2)	Is this work about the biodiversity conservation in private lands, from where it is possible to extract elements for the prioritization process of areas for the implementation of payment schemes?*	Yes	No
(3)	Is this the kind of work that describes a practical case of PES-biodiversity, from where it is possible to extract elements for the prioritization process of areas for the implementation of payment schemes?	Yes	No

Selected works	(ID)*
Barton et al. (2003BARTON, D. N. et al. Spatial prioritisation of environmental service payments for biodiversity protection. Olsom: NIVA. REPORT SNR 4746, 2003.)	(1)
Barton et al. (2009BARTON, D. N. et al. Environmental service payments: Evaluating biodiversity conservation trade-offs and cost-efficiency in the Osa Conservation Area, Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 90, n. 2, p. 901-911, 2009.)	(1)
Bateman et al. (2015BATEMAN, I. J. et al. Conserving tropical biodiversity via market forces and spatial targeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, n. 24, p. 7408- 7413, 2015.)	(2)
Bryan et al. (2011BRYAN, B. A. et al. Comparing Spatially Explicit Ecological and Social Values for Natural Areas to Identify Effective Conservation Strategies. Conservation Biology, v. 25, n. 1, p. 172-181, 2011.)	(2)
Chen et al. (2010CHEN, X. et al. Using Cost-Effective Targeting to Enhance the Efficiency of Conservation Investments in Payments for Ecosystem Services. Conservation Biology, v. 24, n. 6, p. 1469-1478, 2010.)	(1)
Cimon-Morin, Darveau, and Poulin (2013)	(2)
Claassen, Cattaneo, and Johansson (2008CLAASSEN, R.; CATTANEO, A.; JOHANSSON, R. Cost-effective design of agri- environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics, v. 65, n. 4, p. 737-752, 2008.)	(3)
Clements et al. (2013CLEMENTS, T. et al. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a direct payment for biodiversity conservation: The Bird Nest Protection Program in the Northern Plains of Cambodia. Biological Conservation, v. 157, p. 50-59, 2013.)	(3)
De Leeuw et al. (2014)	(3)
Dickman, Macdonald, and Macdonald (2011DICKMAN, A. J.; MACDONALD, E. A.; MACDONALD, D. W. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human-carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 108, n. 34, p. 13937-13944, 2011.)	(3)
Duarte, Ribeiro, and Paglia (2016DUARTE, G. T.; RIBEIRO, M. C.; PAGLIA, A. P. Ecosystem Services Modeling as a Tool for Defining Priority Areas for Conservation. PLOS ONE, v. 11, n. 5, 2016.)	(2)
Egoh et al. (2010EGOH, B. N. et al. Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Little Karoo, South Africa. Conservation Biology, v. 24, n. 4, p. 1021-1030, 2010.)	(2)
Egoh et al. (2011EGOH, B. N. et al. Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 92, n. 6, p. 1642-1650, 2011.)	(2)
Hajkowicz et al. (2008HAJKOWICZ, S. et al. Targeting conservation payments to achieve multiple outcomes. Biological Conservation, v. 141, n. 9, p. 2368-2375, 2008.)	(1)
Hily et al. (2015HILY, E. et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a biodiversity conservation policy: A bio- econometric analysis of Natura 2000 contracts in forest. Ecological Economics, v. 119, p. 197-208, 2015.)	(1)
Klimek et al. (2008KLIMEK, S. et al. Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: A transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biological Conservation, v. 141, n. 11, p. 2888-2897, 2008.)	(3)
La Notte et al. (2014)	(1)
Larsen, Londoño-Murcia, and Turner (2011LARSEN, F. W.; LONDOÑO-MURCIA, M. C.; TURNER, W. R. Global priorities for conservation of threatened species, carbon storage, and freshwater services: scope for synergy? Conservation Letters, v. 4, n. 5, p. 355-363, 2011.)	(2)
Narloch, Pascual, and Drucker (2011NARLOCH, U.; PASCUAL, U.; DRUCKER, A. G. Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environmental Conservation, v. 38, n. 04, p. 417-425, 2011.)	(3)
Nelson et al. (2008NELSON, E. et al. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 105, n. 28, p. 9471-9476, 2008.)	(2)
Pagiola et al. (2007PAGIOLA, S. et al. Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, v. 64, n. 2, p. 374-385, 2007.)	(3)
Sierra and Russman (2006SIERRA, R.; RUSSMAN, E. On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, v. 59, n. 1, p. 131-141, 2006.)	(3)
Ulber et al. (2011ULBER, L. et al. Implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of a payment scheme for environmental services from agricultural land. Environmental Conservation, v. 38, n. 04, p. 464-472, 2011.)	(3)
Von Haaren et al. (2012)	(1)
Wätzold and Drechsler (2014WÄTZOLD, F.; DRECHSLER, M. Agglomeration payment, agglomeration bonus or homogeneous payment? Resource and Energy Economics, v. 37, p. 85-101, 2014.)	(1)
Wendland et al. (2010WENDLAND, K. J. et al. Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecological Economics, v. 69, n. 11, p. 2093-2107, 2010.)	(1)
Wünscher and Engel (2012WÜNSCHER, T.; ENGEL, S. International payments for biodiversity services: Review and evaluation of conservation targeting approaches. Biological Conservation, v. 152, p. 222-230, 2012.)	(1)
Wünscher, Engel, and Wunder (2006WÜNSCHER, T.; ENGEL, S.; WUNDER, S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: increasing efficiency through spatial differentiation. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, v.45, p.319-337, 2006.)	(1)
Wünscher, Engel, and Wunder (2008______. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics, v. 65, n. 4, p. 822-833, 2008.)	(1)
Zabel and Engel (2010ZABEL, A.; ENGEL, S. Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics? Ecological Economics, v. 70, n. 2, p. 405-412, 2010.)	(3)
Zhang and Pagiola (2011ZHANG, W.; PAGIOLA, S. Assessing the potential for synergies in the implementation of payments for environmental services programmes: an empirical analysis of Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation, v. 38, n. 04, p. 406-416, 2011.)	(1)

Groups	Prioritization Elements
Group I - Ecological elements of the landscape	Prioritize areas with the highest richness of species.
	Prioritize areas with the highest number of threatened, vulnerable, and rare species.
	Prioritize areas for the conservation of endemic species.
	Prioritize areas for the conservation of flagship species.
	Prioritize areas for the conservation of species with commercial or culture value.
	Prioritize areas for the conservation of medium and large carnivores.
	Prioritize the functional diversity of the species.
	Prioritize areas with more complementarity and representativeness of biodiversity in relation to the already existing system of reserves.
	Prioritize the areas required for persistence and survival of the species.
	Prioritize the areas with high degree of connectivity.
	Prioritize the areas located farther from highways and urban centers.
	Prioritize the conservation of threatened, vulnerable, and rare habitats.
	Prioritize the fragments of vegetation with high degree of naturalness.
	Prioritize habitat spots with less complex shape.
	Prioritize important areas for the restoration and recovery of habitats and forest coverage.
Group II - Socioeconomic and governance elements.	Prioritize the areas with the lowest land opportunity costs.
	Prioritize the areas with the highest additionality.
	Prioritize the areas with land tenure guarantee.
	Prioritize the areas with lower social development patterns.
	Prioritize the areas where there is integration of the concerned parties.
	Prioritize the areas where there are social organizations.
	Prioritize the areas with more political and institutional capacity.
	Prioritize the areas that adopt sustainable handling practices.
	Prioritize heterogeneous landscapes.
	Prioritize the areas with more spatial congruence between biodiversity conservation and other ecosystem services.

[TFN1] Source: Own Elaboration.

[TFN2] Note: The asterisk (*) at the end and middle of the word allows the system to find derivations of the word. For example: for the term pay* the system finds pay, pays, paying, payment, payments, payoff; for the term priorit* finds priorities and priority; for the term target* finds target, targets, targeted and targeting; for the term prioriti*ation locates prioritization and prioritisation.

Brasil

Brasil

PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING PRIORITY AREAS FOCUSING ON BIODIVERSITY*

PAGO POR SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES: DIRECTRICES PARA LA IDENTIFICACIÓN DE ÁREAS PRIORITARIAS ENFOCADAS EN LA BIODIVERSIDAD

Abstract

Pay*	AND	Environmental	AND	Services	AND	Biodiversity	AND	Priorit* areas
								OR
								Target*
		OR						OR
		Ecosystem						Prioriti*ation
								OR
								Design