A Review of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Agricultural Water: Are PES from the Operation of Agricultural Water Control Structures Ubiquitous?

Okiria, Emmanuel; Zaki, Muhamad Khoiru; Noda, Keigo

doi:10.3390/su132212624

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Payments are frequently made based on the opportunity cost of conservation (World Economic Forum White Paper, 2022) rather than the monetary value of ecosystem services (Jack et al, 2008). Additional revenue streams include regenerative agriculture practices, with an enabling market and regulatory environment (World Economic Forum White Paper, 2022), which can enable farmers to earn income by selling carbon credits through voluntary markets (Fripp, 2014; Wollenberg et al, 2022; World Economic Forum White Paper, 2022) and receiving payments for controlling nutrient runoff (Okiria et al, 2021), eliminating pesticide use (World Economic Forum White Paper, 2022), and implementing soil conservation practices (Niklas & Robert, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning for ecosystem services compensation in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Admasu,

Yeshitela,

Argaw

2023

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid deterioration of the upper Akaki catchment natural environment has led to an increasing impact not only on the watershed ecosystem but also livelihood and general well‐being of the local community. As a result, the water supply is becoming a problem for Addis Ababa and its surrounding residents. This may lead to a greater willingness to pay and cooperate in initiatives to protect the watersheds. Therefore, a market‐based instrument and participatory arrangements are critical for resolving socio‐ecological problems. Therefore, this research aimed to demonstrate a need for an incentive‐based watershed conservation approach that can be used to support nature conservation through long‐term financial investments in the central watersheds and elsewhere. To support the market‐based intervention sealable ecosystem services and cost‐benefit analysis, as well as relevant stakeholders, institutions, and legal frameworks were assessed. The premise factors for designing market‐based approaches to halt biodiversity loss and reversing ecological processes are discussed. A domestic water tariff increase of ETB 1 per m3 (US$ 0.08) could raise approximately US$ 3.24 million annually for watershed management, which could compensate smallholder farmers' annual opportunity costs for crop and livestock forage loss. Furthermore, the practice could help to abate biodiversity loss and improve the local economy and accelerate the implementation of global biodiversity targets.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning for ecosystem services compensation in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Admasu,

Yeshitela,

Argaw

2023

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ecosystem services of irrigated and controlled drainage agricultural systems: A contemporary global perspective

van der Laan,

Virtanen,

Matsuno

et al. 2024

Irrigation and Drainage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigated agriculture provides 40% of the world's crop‐based foods but often with a negative impact on the environment. It is important to recognize that in addition to providing food and fibre, irrigation and controlled drainage systems can be optimized to provide additional ecosystem services and mitigate climate change by using resources in a more efficient way. Contemporary case studies were identified from around the world, including flood control by paddy fields in Japan, water quality enhancement and wastewater reuse in South Africa and Taiwan, micro‐/meso‐climate regulation in Ethiopia and Japan, controlled drainage and sub‐irrigation to maximize carbon sequestration and minimize leaching in Finland, and groundwater table management to reduce irrigation water and pumping requirements in Turkey. Irrigation infrastructure, such as rice paddy terraced landscapes (Japan) and large dams and canals (Australia), have also achieved notable additional ecotourism job creation. Case studies were analysed in terms of funding opportunities and compared using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services system. It is recommended that planning frameworks be developed that seek to optimize ecosystem services such as the ones discussed above. Policy should be updated to recognize these services and provide incentives to irrigators and water management entities accordingly.

show abstract

Pricing of Agricultural Products, Soil and Water Management

Bhattacharyya¹,

Santra²,

Mandal³

et al. 2022

Pricing of Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: A Basis of Crop Insurance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Review of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Agricultural Water: Are PES from the Operation of Agricultural Water Control Structures Ubiquitous?

Cited by 5 publications

References 37 publications

Planning for ecosystem services compensation in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Planning for ecosystem services compensation in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Ecosystem services of irrigated and controlled drainage agricultural systems: A contemporary global perspective

Pricing of Agricultural Products, Soil and Water Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About